This September has seen the launch of a new lobbying organisation, Parents and Teachers for Excellence (PTE). Its website makes its desires fairly clear: the provision of a knowledge-based curriculum, more assessment, effective discipline policies and cultural enrichment. It brings together various people who frequently argue for these things, and it will be interesting to see how it develops.

One of PTE’s launch ‘Research Notes’, entitled ‘Why pupils benefit from assessment’, needs a little close analysis to unpick some of its assertions, however. It would quite interesting to find anyone involved in education who is explicitly against assessment (or excellence, for that matter) since assessment is an integral part of teaching: The mind boggles as to how it might be possible to teach if you did not assess whether children were learning as you went along. As with so many things in education, the devil is the detail naturally, and the Research Note seems to have skated over detail – and veered into unsubstantiated assertion - in its bid to make its argument.

Let’s start with the summary statements. PTE suggest that “Rigorous tests throughout school are important,” “Tests do not need to be frightening” and “The only exams that matter to pupils are those done at 16 and 18”.

So. “Rigorous tests” aren’t synonymous with assessment, as any teacher will know. In education, we talk of summativeand formativeassessment. “Rigorous Tests” (assuming that by “rigorous tests”, PTE mean tests which have been developed with some knowledge of the issues and challenges of devising and administering a written test of educational achievement) are a form of summative assessment, i.e. a way of finding out how much a child has learned about a particular unit or course of work after they have completed the work.

Formative assessment is the jargon term used to describe those aspects of teaching which help children and teachers to identify what children have learned already, whilst helping teachers (and children) identify areas with which where students are struggling so that problems can be addressed immediately. Summative assessment includes “rigorous tests” (which require children to answer tests which include things which they will struggle to answer), and can include interviews, observations and project work designed to make judgements about a child’s position on some scale of achievement. Quizzes, in-class tests devised by teachers, and low stakes tests are important and they help children to learn and teachers to identify strengths and weaknesses.

As teachers and parents should know, administering testing is problematic, and the younger the children, the more problematic the issues. There are good reasons why we only begin to attach qualifications to tests at the age of 16, and why most of us recognise that making strong inferences using tests taken by young children should be treated with the utmost caution. Rigorous tests from the age of 16 are important, which is why they lead to qualifications, but before that there are better ways of assessing children.

PTE suggest that “Tests do not need to be frightening,” which is, once again, a truism with which anyone could agree. It would be interesting to hear of schools which have made tests ‘frightening’ for children. In their summary, however, PTE suggest that ‘In (primary) good schools, pupils often do not know that they are being examined,” whilst going on to say that ‘tests and exams should be tough’. These are interesting assertions, begging the question as what a ‘good school’ in this context might mean, and how young children in primary school might not notice being asked to do something they found extremely difficult.

Whilst children might not notice checks and informal testing in Key Stage 1, these are not generally ‘tough’ for most children. It would also be interesting to hear of a Year 6 class in England in which the pupils did not know that they were being examined. We know the effect of a tough test following the 2016 KS2 reading test, which left a number of 11 year-olds in tears. In most schools, every child knows KS2 SATs matter. Blaming schools for children’s awareness of tests is akin to blaming parents for making sure their children are aware of fire.

“The only exams that matter to pupils are those done at 16 and 18” is almost true. Some exams taken at 17 matter too. But yes, in essence, we only expect children to take personal responsibility for their examination results from the age of 16 for, once again, very good reason.

In its notes on Primary assessment, the PTE research note makes it clear that ‘rigorous tests’ are those held in ‘controlled conditions’. Again, it is hard to square this with the earlier claim that “In (primary) good schools, pupils often do not know that they are being examined.” The note goes on to infer that the only way to check a child’s phonetic awareness is via a test, which would be disputed by the vast majority of primary practitioners. It should be noted that the Year 1 Phonics screening check is explicitly not a test; it is a screening check used to support teaching whilst ensuring that schools are delivering phonics teaching in a way approved of by the government.

Somewhat strangely, in the Primary Assessment section the research note asks how often parents “feel truly confident that they are learning what their children need to get good grades at GCSE, to get a job or to get into a University.” Given that the implicit answer is ‘not very often’ it seems odd to then go on to suggest that “the (rigorous tests which children aren’t aware of taking) give parents advance notice so they can help their children improve.”

The Research Note suggests that tests are designed to tell parents “how well a school is doing”, and then goes on to say that “Of course, the quality of a school is not solely reflected in its ability to get results.” Tests apparently show whether “children are taught to write properly.” Writing hasn’t been assessed using written tests at any point in Primary school for quite some time.

By this point, the Note turns to out and out assertion, saying “When a student enters the adult world and is unemployable because they cannot write a CV or send a word-perfect email, they will stop being happy fast.” Neither of these things are subject in any way whatsoever to ‘rigorous tests’ in Primary schools. At this point, any suggestion of this Note being based on research seems to wither away.

It should be noted that that in both Key Stage 1 and 2 Primary Schools only test children’s knowledge in reading, mathematics and SPaG (Spelling, Grammar and Punctuation). Other areas of the curriculum - including writing - are not subject to regular high-stakes testing. The results of these high-stakes test have serious consequences for the school, and as a result nearly every school is forced to focus on a very limited domain of knowledge, particularly in Years 2 and 6.

This is what many of those who criticise the way in which high-stakes tests distort the Primary School experience for many children are campaigning about, not the general principle of assessment of children. Whilst the (over) simplified message from many parents and teachers is often ‘testing is bad’, this implicitly refers to the narrowing of the curriculum and the intense focus on a very limited aspect of learning which has been forced upon schools in the Primary phase. It would be surprising to find much if any support for the removal of any assessment whatsoever in Primary.

Moving on to the summary on Secondary assessment, the Research Note simply suggests that “all schools should follow the practice of the best schools and test pupils regularly.” Once again, this begs the question as to what the ‘best schools’ means in this context, and this factoid is asserted without substantiation. The distinction between low-stakes and high-stakes tests is ignored and, oddly for a note based on research, the PTE suggest that multiple choice questions in medical exams ‘may’ be used because of the Testing Effect; research should be able to give an answer one way or another, rather than simply suggest a possible explanation.

A full half of the argument for rigorous testing at Secondary level is that students should study ‘the most rigorous subjects possible’ and ‘the same subjects that those in private schools study’, which suggests that even the PTE can’t think of too many arguments for formal tests in controlled conditions in high schools. This might be because administering ‘rigorous tests’ in ‘controlled conditions’ is a time consuming process which most Secondary Schools do very infrequently, given the opportunity cost of formal testing.​In summary, this seems a very poor argument for increasing formal, rigorous, controlled condition testing into our schools. Assessment is a vital part of the art of teaching, and formal testing has its place. That place is from the age of 16, when young adults have a clear stake in the examination process and when we deem them to be mature enough to be judged on their own efforts. High stakes testing before 16 should be used sparingly, if at all, and parents and teachers should be aware of the well-known negative consequences of high-stakes testing.

Bored of excellence being used as a euphomism for a narrow academic education. How many academics do we need? Making same subjects available as in private schools is good making ALL students study them is not.

Thank you for highlighting the misleading way in which the authors of the PTE research note link 'excellence' with 'rigorous tests', rigorous subjects' and private schools.

The words 'rigorous' and 'excellence' have been hijacked by certain politicians and educators to imply that their way is the only way towards 'excellence'. Apart from the smug overconfidence, this implies that any opposition is anti-excellence (eg Gove's 'Enemies of promise').

And what are 'rigorous subjects'? And are they, as the authors imply, more likely in private schools? Nonsense.

Reply

Jan

22/9/2016 04:18:07 pm

I agree with the points you make. I can't tell you how depressing I find this. Presumably the PTE folk will not be supporting the reintroduction of grammar schools because they state that,
“The only exams that matter to pupils are those done at 16 and 18” and " Tests in primary schools make no difference to pupils' future."
So presumably they wouldn't be in favour of the 11+ .... But can't help thinking that would be exactly what they'd campaign for.

Thanks, a very interesting blog. Useful also to note that this group is designed to highlight the work of academies and free schools, while 82% of primary schools are still LA run.

Reply

Caroline

24/9/2016 06:48:52 pm

Horrified and depressed to discover the existence of this Govian lobbying body, attempting to ensure that education continues to be based on evidence-free policies that, entirely coincidentally of course, push large sums of money towards many of those named as supporters.

Other non-sequiturs in the piece you linked to include:

1. the claims that the private school curriculum = better (based on no evidence) and that the state school curriculum ought therefore to more closely align itself with the former; ignoring, of course, that private schools are not required to do and do not in fact bother with any of the KS1 or KS2 SATS tests or the curriculum leading to them, because to do so would be, of course, a complete and utter waste of their time. If PTE was to be true in its desire to ape private schools, it would of course be recommending the immediate end to all SATS testing at primary school. But that is the opposite of what it does.

2. They have no concept at all of what constitutes validity in assessment. They seem to imagine that for a test to be valid, it need merely be 'rigorous' (whatever that means? - do they mean difficult?). They have no apparent understanding that test validity depends on the conclusions drawn from the test: that if a test is asked to support conclusions that cannot in fact be drawn from the test (eg that teachers' ability is high or low, according to the marks their students get; that schools have failed or succeeded according to the marks the students get; that British education is better or worse than international comparators, according to the marks the students get, etc), then the test is invalid.

3. The PTE claim that "the tests students do in primary school do not have any impact on the pupil’s future" - but how does that square with the new requirement for pupils who have "failed" the tests to resit these tests (presumably after more teaching to the test) at secondary school? Do they really think these students will not notice that they are having to redo tests that their peers are not being required to resit, and are either being withdrawn from normal lessons to focus on test preparation, or asked to come in for extra lessons to focus on this? Do they really think these pupils will not feel like failures if this is the case?

4. They claim that the tests allow teachers and parents to identify gaps in a child's knowledge, thus allowing them to be filled. This is of course the aim of formative assessment in normal circumstances. But the phonics tests and others fail in this precisely because they are poorly designed tests: based on little or no evidence, they ignore large amounts of evidence suggesting that, for example, reading is not the same as decoding, or that knowledge of abstruse grammatical terms is neither necessary nor even desirable in improving pupils' writing skills. They seem to confuse (deliberately?) parental and teacher opposition to specific, poorly-designed tests with opposition to formative assessment per se, which is of course to attack a straw man. Formative assessment is universally agreed to help learning: poorly-designed tests are still poorly designed, though.

5. Assessment cannot function, as they claim, as both formative assessment AND to inform government how a school is doing. By definition, formative assessment tells you only where specific pupils are at a specific moment in time, and what they still need to learn. They cannot provide meaningful summative data as well - if you attempt to use one test for both purposes, the inevitable effect is to shut down the formative uses of the test as anything less than perfection implies failure.

6. The assumptions that the main goal of education is employability and that the main requirement for employability is basic literacy are not borne out by any evidence: I think most parents and pupils would value other effects of education such as confidence, socialisation, self-development, and, yes, the apparently dirty word for PTE, happiness, as well employability. Even if you do subscribe to the very narrow functional view of education which says it is purely about training future worker bees, it is hard to argue that soft skills, which are not assessed, are not at least as important in the real world of work as hard skills.

7. The claim that "What is important to the pupil’s future is learning
what is being tested." But if knowing hard facts such as the difference between a subordinating conjunction and a preposition is so essential for success in later adult life and employability, how do we explain how Nick Gibb managed to reach such lofty heights in his career despite being unable to differentiate the two to the satisfaction of the KS2 SATS exam paper, anyway? Or that Nicky Morgan managed to achieve carrer success despite being unwilling (unable?) to answer questions on times tables?

8. Their comments on the merits of multiple choice questions conveniently ignore all the evidence

Reply

Jan

25/9/2016 02:05:09 pm

Agree with comments in the post and those left by readers. Hugely depressing. As Caroline comments "The PTE claim that "the tests students do in primary school do not have any impact on the pupil’s future". How does this sit with the move to expand grammar schools via assessment at 11+? Or maybe the PTE is not in favour of them. Can't imagine that though.

Reply

Jack Marwood

25/9/2016 02:49:23 pm

Thanks for all the comments, everyone - all are much appreciated, and you've covered lots of other issues with this odd Research Note which I either didn't notice or didn't have time to include!

The PTE's 'research' paper on assessment isn't the only dodgy 'research' published on its website. 'Benefits of Academies and Free Schools' is a puff piece. It cites LSE research which referred only to Labour academies - the LSE authors had warned their findings couldn't be applied to converter academies or primary schools. PTE also cited a Policy Exchange document 'The Rising Tide'. Policy Exchange is represented among PTE's supporters. 'The Rising Tide' is used to 'prove' poor-performing schools improved when in the proximity of free schools. But PTE didn't cite it's other finding: high-performing schools didn't. Neither did it heed the warning in 'The Rising Tide' that correlation isn't causation. (No surprise there - 'The Rising Tide' ignored its own warning).

PTE's research paper into 'Enrichment in a longer school day' cites the EEF toolkit as saying such enrichment added two months of learning. But EEF defined such progress as 'low' and found homework in secondary schools and feedback resulted in more months' learning.

The 'research' paper into why schools need effective behaviour policies offered much good advice. But effective behaviour policies aren’t confined to academies. The authors implied improvement in behaviour only happens when ‘poor-performing schools with behaviour problems’ become academies. This is not true.

The 'research' paper into desirability of a knowledge-rich curriculum promotes core knowledge, the US-based curriculum updated for England as CoreKnowledgeUK and which is used by Future Academies, the chain started by Lord Nash before he was fast-tracked to the Lords where he's schools minister, and the West London Free School (the head's one of PTE's supporters). CoreKnowledgeUK is marketed to other schools by its publishers, Civitas. It would make a great deal of money if more schools took up the curriculum. What better way to 'persuade' schools to do so than by fuelling a so-called grass roots campaign whereby parents start demanding such a curriculum. At the same time schools that do use the curriculum (eg WLFS) can use this as a Unique Selling Point which makes it supposedly superior to neighbouring schools.
But using CoreCurriculumUK doesn't ensure high-quality teaching. It's used by Grindon Hall Christian School, a free school which was previously a private school. Ofsted's verdict Nov 2014: Inadequate.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Leave a Reply.

Author

Me?
I work in primary education and have done for ten years. I also have children
in primary school. I love teaching, but I think that school is a thin layer of icing on top of a very big cake, and that the misunderstanding of test scores is killing the love of teaching and learning.